iNFiDeL

Convenient, RDMS wasn't intended to be used to exploit organizations into stealing their shit, but NQ stood by it as espionage, a valid part of the game. The moment it involves actual pvp though its an issue... Not saying its cool to hang out on players ships to get kills, I personally think its cheese but maybe don't leave your ships sitting at the starting location of a major well known mission pick up. Maybe you should check your surroundings for potential threats when you know they are present. Somehow it's beyond comprehension that a ship left open to the public sitting for days on end could get a stowaway, who could track movement. Even now I have a cell phone that can basically be tracked anywhere on the planet, you mean to tell me in the future they can't have space cell phones? Yes its cheesy but if they were going to make it a rule, then they should have done it with the introduction of actual piracy mechanics instead of this nonsense.   

AC didn't dissolve, they just renamed to Legion lets be honest. XD
 

Schematics should stay now with how easy quanta is to get compared to before, whether you mine, haul, build etc, quanta is much easier then ever before which means so are schematics. Maybe a slight adjustments to prices though could be helpful, warp beacons are like 2.5 Billion to start a line on atm.
 

Convenient, RDMS wasn't intended to be used to exploit organizations into stealing their shit, but NQ stood by it as espionage, a valid part of the game. The moment it involves actual pvp though its an issue... Not saying its cool to hang out on players ships to get kills, I personally think its cheese but maybe don't leave your ships sitting at the starting location of a major well known mission pick up. Maybe you should check your surroundings for potential threats when you know they are present. Somehow it's beyond comprehension that a ship left open to the public sitting for days on end could get a stowaway, who could track movement. Even now I have a cell phone that can basically be tracked anywhere on the planet, you mean to tell me in the future they can't have space cell phones? Yes its cheesy but if they were going to make it a rule, then they should have done it with the introduction of actual piracy mechanics instead of this nonsense.   

Now if the scenario was different and they were done implementing tools that made piracy of anything other than noobs flying for the first time a thing, but just hadn't figured out how to implement removing players off a ship, then the rule being added wouldn't be a big deal. Pirates could still be pirates without killing the games population and the only thing lost would be a cheeky mechanic. Since that isn't the case what was lost was the only real piracy tool in the game that didn't solely target noobs. Guys were literally ransoming mission packages and ships to the players who lost their haul for hundreds of millions of quanta, the game was actually starting to feel like it should, a wild world that can attract new players. I mean this is barely any different then those who were insiding orgs. RDMS wasn't intended to result in players getting fat losses, but it developed into that and NQ supported it, now that its actually pvp related though rules are made...

Firstly your "measure to reduce the risk of that happening" is stupid simple fly away from the pipe don't get caught. Second, its a god damn space game man, what space game that isn't a sandbox pve game like space engineers, doesn't have pirates? Third, slapping guns on your ships very much can do something but you wouldn't know that since you haven't tried. a little bit of armor and a full seat of weapons can easily stop a pirate in its track because most pirates use light weight (Hint Hint Low Hitpoint) interceptors that are basically glass cannons. Fourth, regarding pvp is a feature not a requisite, this is complete bull sh*t the only reason anyone can get t4 and 5 safely right now is because TW isn't implemented. The safe zones are only supposed to be around the 3 planets alioth/sanc, madis and thades. So at some point in the future the game itself will say your statement is wrong.
 
Pvp is supposed to be a very real and heavy portion of this game based on what the devs advertised and sold this game as. Also mining is not in anyway comparable to ship building. Mining itself in any game has always come at some level of risk if pvp is implemented in the game. As always the high tier items are in more dangerous areas and as well the lower tier items are safe, which is where the pve stops just because there is a safe zone doesn't make this game pve, everyone is participating in pvp when they boot up DU whether they like it or not, just because someone stays in the safe zone doesn't make it not a pvp zone just outside, if you thought this game was some roblox fun house free for all where you can do what you want free of consequences then you are playing the wrong game or these devs straight up lied to a huge portion of the games' population. Regardless of all this though, my point was not to support the act of camping on a ship, it was to only do away with the option when pirates have some tools to actually pirate. They didn't even program it out of the game yet, just setting up more rules on an open world game thats not feeling very open world. 
 
Now regarding your "Serious questions"
1. Because it creates depth to progression slowing down what we have all made super fast due to the complete lack of any possible loss. 
2. A ship that is often time more valuable then what you are carrying again there is very much a possibility that the prey becomes the hunted here people actually fought back. Rare XL manuevers and rare weapons arn't cheap, neither are the boat loads of warp cells needed since NQ decided decent radar range isn't important. 
3. Tf are you even talking about?
4. Probably should, but there are no NPC, no law besides the bs rules being added in by NQ which don't lead to any kind of in game punishment, just a ban since it made some safers salty enough to petition NQ a billion times. Your bringing up issues that aren't even being considered by NQ so don't waste my time. 
5. This is an entirely different issue all together, possibly fixed by the upcoming changes but as it stands fleet pvp is dead. Every engagement leads to people simply leaving the pvp zone, no one dies no one gets an actual victory because voxel is so OP that you can survive nearly any fight. I am talking about pirating because pirating is what was effected by this rule change. fleet pvp is actually being focused on finally but that doesn't mean pirating should have no place.

The only Whah I hear here is you guy, oh boo hoo you don't want to participate in pvp so you should be exempt. Safer is a term to describe people like you, a whiny pve cry baby who thinks its their right to have unlimited access to the highest tiers of resources and gameplay available in the game without any risk. No one asked for an easy kill option dip sh*t, we are pointing out a fact that it is almost impossible to pirate now. If you think otherwise get your dumb *ss out of the safe zone and prove me wrong. The only booty you will find is noobs starting out and that's bad for everyone. Lastly since the pvp is about as complex as battleship you shouldn't have any problem throwing a gun on your ship and fighting back, its not that hard from what you say guy. 

Justifying log off beacon alts on a constructs hull is nonsense, NQ carpet bombing the issue the way they now did is just as silly.
 
If you'd manage to get an alt INSIDE a construct as a stowaway I'd frankly see no issue. It's on the hauler to keep his doors locked after all. NQ probably is not able to determine is someone is IN or ON a construct so they just created a broad stroke "solution". It's really just another problem cause by half implemented game mechanics. Having pressurised environments would have made this way easier.. AND add interesting gameplay options..

I totally agree to this. But right now you can just walk over and stand on the outside of any construct, and the owner has no way of preventing this or removing you. So the problem is 100% NQ.

.

To be honest, the current piracy meta was hunting in fish aquarium. If alt tagging was done properly, the victim hauler had no chance to know he was tagged and was practically dead. Yes, there were exceptions e.g. Eye of Apathy. But generally speaking, the mechanics was totally unbalanced.
On the another hand, we have warp drives, we have AGGs. Our space radars have WWII range and I don't want to comment atmo radars. This doesn't any sense. The resolution could be extending range by antenna, could be extending range for higher tier radars, maybe allowing space radars to do some sort of directional active scanning with extended range.  Or if the ship has active shield, the player docking will not be performed.

The are no tools for tracking / scanning in the pvp zone. Now it is like fishing wish your bare hand after possible ships. If they would increase the scan range to 30-40SU, then we would have not to loggout alts on the enemie ship.
 

Also to all you Safers who want to bring up killing defenseless haulers, its your fault for making them defenseless. Put some iron and weapons on and haul the right way. My hauler is a 4 seater 90k voxel beast and if a pirate showed up before they'd have to pull my ship from my dead corpse. 
 

Firstly I just want to start by saying I am not a pirate, I've participated once ever in pirating but do a lot more hauling then pvp. With that said as a hauler taking away my only option for any kind of thrilling game play was a bad move. In the current games state there is nearly no way to pirate anything beyond a noob with a crappy hauler running down the pipe. Experienced haulers are overly rewarded by simply knowing to go a few SU off the pipe to avoid 100% of the risk. I can now run my missions free of any fear because there is absolutely no way your going to track me once I'm 10-20 SU off the pipe and good luck catching me as I leave, once I see you on my radar I'm just going to turn around and go back to the planet. These changes should have been only implemented once an alternative like a tracker or interceptor radar was implemented. Once again pvp space is basically pve space. Might as well have allowed warping missions cause is basically the same thing now. come on NQ what happened to open world?  

Its a recurring topic. 
 
NQ has yet to understand, or admit that frequent change, enriched with achievement is what players seek in computer games. 
 
JC's vision about this in another great failure. 
 
He assumed a game can retain a healthy ecosystem of players if the universe works around cycles of slow and increasing exhaustion of resources followed by the discovery of another resource pocket. 
 
When in reality, this will alienate casual players. Reducing the ecosystem to a few hardcore players that dont "play the game" but instead "work the game". 
 
Surely the economy should have long term cycles. But the cycle cannot be a full, and slow, economy depression, followed by a boom, and another slow depression. 
Because players trying out the game won't wait 3 months for things to get better...... 

As title says, please put in an ore respawning mechanisim, sure you may "wish" (though not nesessarily) to do a daily restart of server. And no it wont kill the economy.
Eve-Online does daily respawn or ores, and economy works fine.

I just responded to this update on the ticket. And no, this is not an acceptable excuse here even when I did predict that eventually NQ would just throw the "it is actually not supported" line out there as they would not be able to find a solution.
 
That DU is not supported on Shadow was never before stated in the system specs and still isn't. DU has run just fine up to the 0.24 PTS. NQ has been (or at least should have been) well aware that they have a good number of subscribers and backers using Shadow There is no reason for DU to not work on Shadow as the system specs are well above the suggested hardware specifications The logs from the crash consistently show a Windows stopcode frequently seen with applications with memory issues such as leaks or incorrect allocation of memory.  
Just to remind NQ; here are the DU system specifications which Shadow meets and exceeds:
 
Recommended:
CPU (Processor)
Intel Core i7 7700 (3.6 GHz) / AMD Ryzen 7 1700 (3.00 GHZ) (Shadow well exceeds this)
To run Dual Universe, you will need a CPU with AVX instructions.   More information here. Memory (Ram)
16 GB (While base Shadow has 'only' 12 GB memory, the issue is the same across all Shadow configurations. Minimum spec for DU is 8GB)
GPU (Graphics Card)
AMD RX 580 (8 GB) / NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (8 GB) (Shadow well exceeds this) Operating System
Windows 10 (Shadow meets this)
 
SOURCE

DU tweet from April 12th "It's important to note that we did never officially announce our game's compatibility with ShadowPC. Therefore bugs are subject to occur."
 
Link - 
 
I'm confident it will get fixed, after all its a 100% reproducible issue, all we can do is wait patiently - I do feel for those who have no alternative PC.

An increasing number of DU players are reporting that they can't play anymore due to an issue causing DU to crash during loading on a Shadow PC.
 
The game will crash at the exact same point every time, for most it seems to be around the 70% mark but I have seen reports of different numbers.
 
If you encounter this issue, please do log a ticket with  Novaquark and provide the logs found in %localappdata%/NQ/DualUniverse
Make sure you let the reporting tool finish after the crash and do fill out details there, such as to what percentage you load in Zip the folders "CrashDumps", "crashes" and "log" (as applicable/available) and attach to the ticket you open with Novaquark. hit [WINDOWS] R and type "dxdiag" .. save the logfile created in the tool and add to the ticket  
Also log a support ticket with Shadow , the CrashDump file(s) and dxdiag logs may be of use to them, the logfiles for DU obviously not.
 
As we're seeing quite a few reports of players having this issue and many depend on a Shadow PC to play, it would be nice if @NQ-Naerais or @NQ-Deckard could provide somewhat regular updates on this issue here.
 
 

THE FUTURE OF DU
We’ve seen a lot of positive feedback following the release of our devblog series on the future of DU. We’re  thankful to our community for the great feedback and encouragement. We’ve collected what seem to be the most burning questions following the publication of the blogs and wanted to do a follow-up to address them the best we can. Not all questions have an answer at this point, and we’ll try to fill in the gaps as we’re able in future communications. 
 
Are you going to launch the game in 2021? 
Realistically speaking, we have too much to do with the time that’s left  this year to get to a state where we feel the game is ready for launch. Our current plan is “at some point in 2022”, and we’re targeting mid-year. That projection is tentative, depending largely on our progress and  the feedback we get from our community, so please don’t hold this as a commitment. It could be sooner, it could be a bit later. The state of the game will dictate the date.
 
Why is the game not working on Shadow (cloud gaming platform) and do you plan to support it?
We believe cloud gaming platforms are a great way to enjoy DU if you want to play the game but don’t meet the proper PC specs or want to benefit from the latest hardware improvements without investing in upgrades for your gaming rig; however, we need to clarify that we are not yet officially supporting cloud gaming platforms, including Shadow. Our releases are not tested on these platforms or Windows emulations on Mac and Linux, and we can’t guarantee compatibility at this point. The game is still in beta, and we are focusing our efforts on native Windows PC support.
 
We plan to officially support these platforms at some point, and would like to ensure that when we do we are able to offer ongoing compatibility with adequate testing and collaboration with the platform holders to make a long-term commitment. 
 
We recently started working with a cloud gaming platform in an official manner, and we are hopeful to announce our official support of that platform soon. In the meantime, compatibility with cloud gaming platforms can’t be guaranteed. We log bugs and look at potential quick wins, but we can’t commit to a timeframe for fixing them. Please also note that there is a waiting list of one year to have access to one of the machines of Shadow, which makes debugging all the more difficult.
 
Will there be an updated roadmap?
At the moment, there is no plan to release an official roadmap with dates. We tried to explain why in the three devblogs. We’re changing many things in the way we develop DU, and it’s hard right now to have a clear idea of our future velocity. We don’t want to give you dates that we might not hold. We think it’s more important to have the freedom to adapt to your feedback rather than trying to hit the dates on a public roadmap. We hope you will see this as a sign that things are changing for the better and that we’re being more realistic in our approach.
 
Why don’t we have more frequent releases?
Dual Universe is an extremely complex game to develop. Many of the systems we have already in place are interdependent, and changing or adding a feature has ripple effects on other features and systems both in terms of code and in terms of feature design. For example, RDMS has to be carefully considered in many things we do, as does  the role of organizations in the introduction of new features, etc. Most of the tech we use is custom and not off-the-shelf. It’s one of the secret sauces of the game, and it also makes features much more difficult to work on because we develop the tech AND the features at the same time.
 
Now, with the introduction of the PTS, we hope to make more frequent releases, including releases of prototypes, such as the Lua technology for screen units. How frequently will depend on what goes in these releases and how much work needs to be done after we receive feedback from the PTS. We estimate that you can expect three to four additional major releases in 2021, and smaller releases in-between, but that’s only a ballpark estimate for now.
 
What’s going on with long-standing beta bugs? Are you going to fix them?
Yes we will fix them as quickly as possible although we aren’t able to pinpoint an exact date. Some bugs are easier to squash than others, and some even require a rework of an entire complete backend system to resolve. These processes need to be scheduled accordingly, also taking into account that we want to avoid reworking the same thing multiple times if we suspect that the development of an upcoming feature will force us to rework the same system again. The more critical the bug, the higher the priority. When we’re focused on fixing bugs,  that means we’re not working on the plan we presented to you, so it’s a balancing act. We wish we could give you a list of bugs and a timeframe for each one, but that would be highly unrealistic. These bugs are not being forgotten, that’s the best we can tell you right now.
 
Can we expect a more frequent communication from Novaquark?
We’d love to, just understand that the frequency of our communications really depends on the cadence of the game releases. The way it works is that as soon as the content of a new release is established (at least a content draft), we sit down and make a plan for how and when we’re going to talk about these features/this content. Often we have to wait until a feature is stable enough in terms of game design and/or coding to be able to talk about it or show it, as a feature can evolve a lot along the development process and the unfolding of our sprints. We simply want to ensure that the information we give you isn't misleading, as early communication means the end result may differ significantly once development is complete and the feature is released.
So between releases, there is indeed a communication gap. 
 
There are different general topics we could discuss between releases, but they wouldn’t really bring anything concrete to the table and that communication could be seen as shallow and vague. It’s actually an interesting topic we’d like to explore with you: what is it exactly that you expect in terms of communication? How can we balance having meaningful content to present with what seems to be the need of our players to see ongoing communication? Based on reactions we’ve seen in the past, we  believe that communicating simply for the sake of it when we have nothing really new to talk about is never well-received.
 
What about PvE? Are you planning to add PvE features to make the game more varied?
Our current focus is on enabling emergent content between players. PvE is not one of our priorities at the moment. This doesn’t mean that it won’t ever come to the game, but it is not going to be added before the official release of the game. That said, one could potentially consider the challenges that we’re currently working on as some form of PvE, though not in the sense that you’ll be shooting NPCs or wildlife.
 
Will we see a return of NQ employee Interviews and AMAs?
We would love to do things like livestreams and AMAs again when the time is right. We feel like these formats are better suited when there is a clearly defined topic to focus the discussion, such as a major release for instance. It is duly noted that these interactions with the community are appreciated, and we will include them whenever possible.
 
You mentioned the changes in the industry gameplay, but it wasn’t clear if schematics will stay or go?
The honest answer is that we don’t know yet. When we introduced schematics, it was a major disturbance in the forc… in the economy of the game.  We don’t want to rush into more changes after that, especially given that players invested a lot of hard-earned quanta in buying them. Removing schematics is ONE of the options we’re looking at, as well as changing their prices or adding more recipes. Reverting to the way it was before the introduction of schematics is also on the table. We know we want to do something with the current state of the industry to add back some of the fun that was taken away with 0.23, but how exactly we’ll do it is yet to be decided.  
 
Is there going to be a wipe?
We see that the debate on the topic has been pretty hot in the community for a while, and it’s about the same at Novaquark. We’re uncertain if the changes we are planning to introduce will require a wipe or not, and we’ve started (intense) internal discussions on the topic. Our priority is to try to preserve the time and effort that our players have put in the game since the beta started. Once we’ve got a better idea of how much the changes we discussed in the third  “Future of DU” devblog will impact the game’s economy, we’ll make a decision. If there is a wipe (and it’s a big IF), it may be a partial one only affecting certain aspects of the universe. Our  priority will be to mitigate the impact for long-time players.

Join us in our feedback thread here!
 

Call me impressed, if you guys can pull this off I'll be staying for sure. Proof is in the pudding though. I'm rooting for you NQ!

Call me impressed, if you guys can pull this off I'll be staying for sure. Proof is in the pudding though. I'm rooting for you NQ!

Call me impressed, if you guys can pull this off I'll be staying for sure. Proof is in the pudding though. I'm rooting for you NQ!

As other players have said, your starter planet is just that - your starter - get your feet on the ground and learn the basics. You'll need to travel to find higher tier ore's and most meganodes Happy exploring.. 

Oh.. and:

Call me impressed, if you guys can pull this off I'll be staying for sure. Proof is in the pudding though. I'm rooting for you NQ!